Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Heavy Rail and Mobility for the Handicapped

—

by

James A. Bacon
in


I apologize to readers who have over-dosed on the Rail-to-Metro story, but it is one of the most important public works project in Virginia history. All facets of the story need to be explored.

This Youtube video comes from Pat Kane, a Northern Virginia urban planner whom I first met in the late 1980s when I started covering transportation and land use issues for Virginia Business magazine. Back then, some 20 years ago, Kane was a visionary for re-developing Tysons Corner into the kind of higher-density pedestrian-oriented community that many people have since come to favor.

Kane suffered from a stroke a couple of years back, rendering him unable to type. But his mind is still lucid. Thanks to Youtube, he can still express himself. In this video commentary, he makes the case for Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail. Fifty percent of the population does not drive, he notes — that includes teenagers, the elderly and the handicapped, like himself. One benefit of heavy rail that has not been factored into the debate, he suggests, is its ability to provide mobility for non-motorists.

All the more reason to go back to the drawing boards and get Rail to Dulles right.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have said that transit should get credit for what it does and not for what it doesn’t do, and this is one of those it does.

    Now, how much is that benefit worth, who does it benefit, and who should pay for it?

    BTW. Have you ever seen the contraption that is on hand at VRE stations to load wheelchairs? It is a manually operated, handcranked beast. I’ve never seen it used, but there is one at every station, just in case.

    Surely there is a better way.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Before we decide to go do it the right way, we should understand if there IS a right way.

    It could be a white elephant, regardless.

    The Feds are right in saying, “Why should we give you more money when you can’t take proper care of what you have?” If NOVA had to actually pay what it costs to operate METRO, instead of what it costs to have it fall apart, then they might be a lot less inclined to invest in a new white elephant.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I have said that transit should get credit for what it does and not for what it doesn’t do”

    but it is not “getting credit” that is the issue.

    the issue is – should “we” pay for transit as a way to ensure basic mobility for anyone who cannot drive

    OR

    transit should not exist unless it “pays for itself”

    yes or no – please

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    By transit, do you mean just transit, or the total composite transportation system?

    “the issue is – should “we” pay for transit as a way to ensure basic mobility for anyone who cannot drive “

    I don’t think that is the issue at all.

    The issue is whether transit is a net public benefit, or not. ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, including non-driver mobility.

    If it is, then it is paying us, not the other way around. And, we are doing far more than just paying to provide a service to those who do not drive.

    If it is not, then we are paying to support a system that won’t, and can’t, support itself.

    There may still be reasons enough to do this, but we should understand exactly what it is we are supporting, and what we think it’s worth.

    Is it transport for handicapped? How many?

    Is it transport for non drivers? How many?

    Is it pollution reduction? How much?

    Is it increased tax revenue from development? How much?

    Maybe you find out that what you have to pay to keep Metro running is less than you would lose from not having all that development tax revenue. In that case, you would have had to pay more of some other kind of tax if you didn’t pay to support Metro, and with Metro you get all those other benefits, too, like transport for non drivers.

    But, not everyone benefits from metro being able to provide some transport for a few of the nondrivers in the region.

    Even though it is a partial benefit, who should pay for it? How do you structure this so it isn’t a subsidy?

    Or is this a case where subsidy is justified?

    If you think that subsidizing basic mobility is justified, does Metro’s limited capability qualify as basic mobility, really? Or is there some other method that works better?

    RH

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    nice waffling!

    and the answer is…

    that all transit as currently implemented worldwide is wrong – built before we really knew what the right answer is….

    and that we won’t really know whether it is justified or not until we figure out who the Dept of Truth is and have them conduct a decades-long study to make sure we know for sure that subsidizing transit won’t in the end through a colossal series of unintended consequences… cause the price of wheelchairs to escalate so high that the folks who needed transit could no longer afford wheelchairs to get to transit…

    🙂

    see RH.. I’ve “learned” from you quite well.. I’ll bet you could not have written this better…

    🙂

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “that all transit as currently implemented worldwide is wrong – built before we really knew what the right answer is….”

    I never, ever, said any such thing.

    There are transit examples which analysis has concluded are, at least within the confines of the anlalysis, cost effective and a net social benefit.

    Jitneys seem to be cost effective to me.

    Winston and Shirley suggest that approximately 2% of mass transit in the U.S. is a net social benefit. The rest should be scrapped or repriced, or reorganized.

    Another analysis has concluded that ony two heavy rail systems in the US make financial sense: BART and NYC.

    One recent study concluded that the proper fare for DC Metro, in order to maximise its social benefit, would be to set the fare to zero, that it would work best with 100% subsidy. Make it free, like most roads are.

    So

    I have never suggested that all transit is wrong, or that no transit can be cost and socially effective.

    I do suggest that we have built a lot of stuff without thinking it through, based on false premises, wrong assumptions, and ridership that never happened.

    If we are only succeeding a few percent of the time, then I think we need a higher standard of accountability when it comes to spending $5 billion of public funds. We ought to be able to ensure that we know what we are actually getting, as opposed to the pap that ususally gets sold.

    And how much it costs.

    If we decide we are going to build metro to transport non-drivers, that’s perfectly OK with me, but lets be legitimate about it.

    I’m not saying don’t build it, or don’t ever build it, that there is no way to build it correctly. I’m saying we usually do a lousy job that wastes money and resources.

    One reason we build a lot of stuff that doesn’t work is that we have a bunch of people promoting it for political reasons or for some other agenda. These usually boil down to subsidising someone or other.

    I don’t believe for a second that four Metro stops in Tyson’s will transform the place to pedestrian nirvana. And I think that making any such claim leads to a lack of credibility, which is ultimately what killed the Fed Funding.

    Claiming tht others are saying something they are not, also leads to a lack of credibility.

    RH

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    From:

    “Transit in Washington, D.C.”

    “We find that (i) rail transit generates congestion-reduction benefits that exceed rail subsidies; (ii) the combined benefits of rail and bus transit easily exceed local transit subsidies generally; (iii) the lowest-income group receives a disproportionately low share of the transit benefits, both in absolute terms and as a share of total income; and (iv) for practical purposes, the scale of the current transit system is about optimal.”

    http://www.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-06-21.pdf

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Nice bias paper Larry. Before they get to the ‘quote’ that you put in your comment they started with this statement (of fact) – “Nationwide, the percentage of transit commute trips has dropped from 12.6 percent in 1960 to 4.7 percent in 2000 (Pucher and Renne 2003).”

    Despite that, the paper then goes on to try to justify adding more public transit. It really doesn’t pencil out, even this study points at that conclusion – yet ‘train’ diehards keep wanting to pour more and more money into an outdated, antiquated passenger system that doesn’t meet the needs of the public and never will (freight rail is another discussion and it DOES make sense).

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, but ased on the information they provide to back it up, it is hard to see how they reach their conclusion.

    Essentilly they say that there have not been good studies done to calculate the benefit – then they make their own conclusion.

    To be fair, I haven’t read all of this but consider what some of th reviewers ae saying when they say the fares should be zero: Either that there is no way the users will pay the costs OR that the valus is so high we should provide it for free.

    I think there needs to be more of this so that the analyses can be compared, and they point out that there is very little to go on. Eventually, the shortcomings of the various analyses can be reconciled and some version of truth will be established as common knowledge.

    While we don’t have, and shouldn’t have a governmental “department of truth” this kind of co-operative argument is how we devolve to what we think it is.

    From the same document you noted we find:

    “A growing literature has looked at optimal transit supply, usually in conjunction with optimized fare levels. Most studies have assumed efficient pricing of all modes, including the automobile. With respect to results, no consensus exists; the optimal fares found in these studies range from close to zero to nearly four times current levels.
    Viton (1983) finds that optimal fares in San Francisco and Pittsburgh should be close to zero, producing a substantial increase in transit’s mode share supply. On the other hand, Winston and Shirley (1998) employ an aggregate joint-choice model to estimate optimal transit supply in a set of U.S. metropolitan areas and conclude that average service frequencies should fall dramatically for both bus and rail—a 73 percent decline for bus and a 60 percent drop for rail. They also find that fares should double for rail and quadruple for bus, to the point that fares for both modes come close to covering full marginal costs.”

    And also this

    Estimates of the overall benefits of the transit system are less common, at least in an academic context. The Texas Transportation Institute (Schrank and Lomax 2005) includes a measure of time-savings from the existence of a public transportation system using an aggregated approach based on the relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles traveled in urbanized areas.
    ……
    For the 13 largest areas, they estimate the average savings to be worth almost $1.2 billion annually. This figure is a coarse estimate and excludes the costs of provision [of transit].

    Winston and Shirley’s (1998) examination of U.S. transit policy concluded that on average, reducing rail spending is essentially a break-even proposition, and eliminating bus service would actually increase welfare because of the improvement in the government’s fiscal balances. They note, however, that this is a nationwide average. In certain dense metropolitan areas, transit investment may be more attractive.”

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    How did you conclude that this study was biased and Winston & Shirley not?

    They reference more than 30 other studies including the one done by Winston & Shirley 8 years prior to this study…

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How did you conclude that I had concluded it was biased? (I’m not anonymous 10:26)

    I said I hadn’t read it yet.

    I have read Winston & Shirley, and I couldn’t find anything wrong with their methodology, which is thoroughly described along with sources of data.

    AFT often references other cost of community services studies. How many references they make has nothing to do with whether they are biased. If they go through and refute Winston & Shirley and have a good argument, I wouldn’t call that bias. If they just ignore them and reach a different conclusion without explanation, then I would be suspect.

    Then I’d want to know who their client was.

    But the tip off to me was whwn they said:

    “Winston and Shirley’s (1998) examination of U.S. transit policy concluded that on average, reducing rail spending is essentially a break-even proposition….”

    When I don’t think that is what Winston and Shirley said.

    Mis-quoting or reading in additional thoughts to other’s words is is a tip off of bias, to my way of thinking.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I still haven’t read all of it, but I can see a couple of problems.

    “To estimate total benefits of the weekday Washington-area transit system, we reduce transit supply to zero and calculate the resulting aggregate welfare change. The decline in traveler welfare minus the savings in operating costs can be interpreted as a measure of the benefits of the existing system. “

    And

    “Washington-START takes the distribution of households by demographic segment and residential location as given. Travel decisionmaking is modeled as a nested logit tree; in successive nests, households choose first whether to take a trip, then destination, mode, time of day, and route.”

    It seems to me that suddenly shutting off the supply of one current option is a long way different form calculating the net social benefit. This is similar to the usual arguement that says what if all those metro riders were drivers, when of course, they would not be.

    Nelsen recognizes this in saying

    “START, as a logit-based choice model, imposes high welfare costs for completely eliminating traveler options. But a severe change in those options could lead to the development of new options not previously available. On the demand side, travelers would adjust to the loss of the transit system by moving, purchasing vehicles, changing jobs, or using van or car pools in the medium to long term. These options are also outside the model.”

    ” …we find that the welfare losses increase very rapidly as 0 percent transit supply is approached. For example, when both frequency and vehicle capacity are 25 percent of baseline (and system vehicle revenue miles are 6 percent of baseline), the welfare losses compared with the baseline are $894 million, quite a bit smaller than the $2.3 billion loss from a complete shutdown of transit”

    In other words we could do without quite a bit of transit (and transit costs) with little loss in welfare. We are buying more than is optimal. This is not so different from what Winston and Shirley said. However Nelson is correct in pointing out that Winston and Shirley’s calculations are for a national average in 1990 and Washington DC is far from the national average. This could account for some of the differnence.

    In short the metodology they used is not in harmony with the ususal practice for Calculating net social value.

    The idea is to do it ahead of time, so that you can predict whether a given policy is a good investment – not to subsidize the area for 30 years and then see what happens if the subsidy is suddenly yanked.

    As noted, the model takes the number of households as a given. You would get a lot differnt answer if you started with the number of households in place 30 years ago when the investment was made. And at that time ridership was much less, so the time value of money calculations looks a lot different from the other end.

    Finally, the START model used makes no consideration of changes in land use, as more sophisticated models do. Differences in land use would be one of the major differnces if net social value was calculated, all things considered.

    So, had Nelson also yanked out all the Metro realted development, at the same time he switched off Metro service (in the model) then we would have found a very different demand for ridership.

    Basically what happened here is we’ll keep everything the same and turn off Metro. This results in the same kind of problem that the AFT modesl have: it is an analysis of people’s lives taken at a single point in time. It is unrealistic in the extreme.

    So, while I think this is an incomplete analysis, and mostly wrong, that doesn’t mean that there are not some things we can learn from it.

    But I would’t take it a s gospel, any more than I would Winston and Shirley.

    RH

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    and the answer is?

    that we still need a Dept of Truth?

    🙂

    Bonus Question: How many politicians who can affect the outcome of Dulles Rail have read either report?

    Answer: If the major capitals of other countries in the world have transit -then Washington will also – studies or no studies.

    … because.. in the end.. there is no Dept of Truth… only your gut.

    🙂

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So you are telling me that just because all the other capitals in the world have transit, we should have transit, even if we know it actually damages the public coffers, the environment, and reduces the efficiency of commerce?

    (We don’t actually know that, one wayor another, but I assume you are willing to take the chance just because other capitals have?)

    It is OK to chance making a multibillion dollar mistake, just to keep up with the Francos?

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We need the truth. Without it we are bound to make huge mistakes. Politicians don’t care about the truth, because we don’t require them to.

    Then we complain about the inefficiency of government.

    So, what we will do is spend %40 billion on Metro, operate it at a loss for 30 years, and then juutify this by saying, “Hey, look what would happen, hopw much we woould lose, if we turned it off today.”

    And we will call that fair analysis.

    Would you fly in an airplane whose structural analysis had as many flaws as that report?

    I wouldn’t, and I think we need a better way to think about things that cost billions.

    Go ahead and mock me. You will get as mcu of the bill for our mistakes as I will.

    RH

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    FTA does use a cost-effectiveness index CEI and the report I provided does calculate a cost benefit per trip.

    The subject of this thread was about the people who benefit from transit that my not have equitable access to other modes of mobility.

    That is a key goal of the Feds criteria for funding.

    For instance, in many rural areas and even suburban areas like Fredericksburg, there are hundreds of vans on the roads everyday moving handicapped and elderly from their homes to where they need to go – many to medical appointment.

    FRED – the Fredericksburg Area Transit uses smaller buses and charge twenty-five cents per trip..that’s right 25 cents.

    When asked why it was so cheap, they said that their grant was to provide transportation to those who were undeserved not collect fares to pay for the service.

    In fact, when they were asked to provide shuttle service between park and ride lots and VRE – charging a fare to offset the cost of the service, they initially refused because they felt like it would expand their system beyond what was permitted by their basic funding – i.e. the basic funding pays for things like administrative help and other overhead also.

    So they have this mandate.. and their responsibility is to operate it to benefit the “undeserved”.

    For bigger areas like NoVa, there is a similar responsibility and just like in Fredericksburg, there are folks who ask why a system could not/should not serve BOTH the undeserved AND provide transportation for others if it also provides a useful benefit (like taking some cars off the road).

    But not appreciated by many – as to why transit that does not “pay for itself” is none-the-less a reality ….. is because one of the core purposes of it is to provide mobility to those who need it and may not be able to provide it for themselves not to be self-supporting.

    Folks opposed to transit – on a cost basis – often cite low ridership numbers in terms of percentages – like 5% but fail to think about what that means in terms of sheer numbers of additional cars on the road at rush hour….

    and the same opponents – at the same time they cite low ridership numbers then say that the cars are so crowded that folks cannot stand and that transit won’t work until there are enough seats…

    so… they are whacked for not having enough ridership and having too much ridership at the same time.

    Further, transit ridership on most systems in the USA goes up dramatically when two things happen:

    1. -gasoline exceeds $3 a gallon
    2. – bad weather or bad accidents

    so that tells me that people WILL ride transit in large numbers – as opposed to the view provided by opponents that folks won’t ride it no matter what… and for that reason.. it should be closed down.

    and what I am saying about transit on a worldwide basis is this:

    If you believe that it is not justifiable… then you have to also accept the fact that thousands of people in hundreds of cities disagree with you and, in fact, do believe it is justifiable.

    Now if only two or three places in the world provided transit and other places.. agreed with you – then we’d have a real debate..

    but the sheer numbers of places that have transit argue strongly that it is justifiable unless you want to believe that ALL of these people are making stupid and unjustifiable decisions.

    so that’s why I say that transit worldwide does mean something in terms of viability.

    If what you claim is true.. then most places.. around the world would agree with you and not build transit.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “..the report I provided does calculate a cost benefit per trip.”

    So, you are asking me to accept that one report as “the departmnet of truth”?

    I’m no expert, but even I could see major problems with that report. Even the authors offered up some.

    What I suggest is that we need amuch higher standard. We need to resolve the differences betweent he many repoorts created, not merely produce more reports and claim victory by numbers.

    Would you fly in an airplane that had the same level of analysis, and made the same kind of gross assumptions included in your article? I don’t think so.

    No, I do not beleive believe that ALL of these people are making stupid and unjustifiable decisions.

    But I do beileve that the political conditions for making stupid and unjustifiable decisions are similar in most situations. The fact that these have resulted in unjustafiable transit surprises me not. Winston and Shirley have an entire chapter devoted to this.

    I believe that there is a good deal of transit that is provided in spite of the fact that it is not good for the public welfare. I beleive transit works where it works, and therefore at least some of ALL those locations are making huge mistakes.

    AS environmentalists, we should be opposed to such huge mistakes because they are a waste of resources.

    The fact that highly subsidised transit exists worldwide does not mean squat, as to whether it is worthwile. If it is viable because it is subsidised, what does that tell you?

    Maybe the subsidies are worthwhile, on some measureable basis. If so, why hasn’t someone pointed out what they are, in a way that is unarguable?

    ——————————–

    You really don’t listen, Larry. You are far to eager to recreate (and restate) my arguments as silly. If you eep this up, I’ll begin tot think youare a liar.

    Say whatever you like about ridership. I will use your own argument to look at the facts on the ground.

    1). Metro has NEVER, not in thirty years achieved the ridership that was used to justify it initially.

    2). Average ridership on Metro over 24 hours barely exceeds what a similar number of lane miles can (and does) carry over 24 hours.

    3) I never said that transit won’t work until there are enough seats. I said it is unfair to compare costs with a mode that DOES provide seats – and seatbelts, etc.

    I said that not providing seats is an uncivilized mode of transit. I didn’t make up the moniker for what is commonly known as “the orange crush”.

    4) “but fail to think about what that means in terms of sheer numbers of additional cars on the road at rush hour”

    Yeah, assuming that all the same people were still traveling to the same place at the same time. That is the same assumption your report made, and it is a wrong assumption.

    The right assumption is to consider whether there is a way to accomplish the same amount of work (GDP or whatever) without enormous investments in heroic and money losing enetrprises like METRO.

    The right assumption is that absent Metro, we would have done something else. That something else (MIGHT or MIGHT NOT) made more sense. But we will never know as long as people like yourself refuse to consider it.

    5) Metro ridership goes DOWN during bad weather because a)people don’t want to endure the weather waiting for their ride
    b) fewer people drive to Metro and c) those that do drive, drive to their actual destination. d) schools are out and people have to stay home.

    ————————–

    I never ever said anything against an opperation like Fredericksburg transit. In fact, I think Jitneys are the most effective form of shared transport around.

    If we agree to provide transit as a charity, fine. We are allowed to do that.

    But then, don’t turn around and claim that some other transit Autos and roads and trucks), that you don’t happen to agree with is subsidised. We are allowed to provide that charity, too.

    Frankly, the REASON for Fredicksburg transit or the value of their fares has NOTHING to do with whether the operation is worth doing.

    I once worked as a supervisor in a sheltered workshop. All of my workers arrived on some form of shared transit – because they were incapable of learning to drive. I arrived in my own car on a public highway.

    If I had a dozen workers, and my transport costs were ten times as high as theirs, was the total system worth it? (Their transport AND mine?}

    Yes, I would venture, (knowing nothing about it) that FRED is far more cost effective than Metro.

    But now, if you are proposing a new reason why transit that does not “pay for itself” ..because one of the core purposes of it is to provide mobility to those who need it — then you are at least being honest and not blowing smoke about reducing congestion and pollution.

    If we are going to suggest that the reason we have FRED is to take the poor and elderly to the doctor, we should ask “How is the doctor being paid?”. Is this a transportation system, or a health care system?

    We ARE all opposed to government funded health care, right?

    My ONLY argument is that we can decide better what charity to promote, if we know and understand what the true costs are and what the true benefits are. If transport for the underserved is part of that, fine. Now give an equal amount of credit for those underserved that are transported via private auto on public roads.

    To do understand the true costs and benefits we have to be honest and objective, not assume a certain position is correct. No matter how many times it has been adopted by other governments.

    How many times did we drop a ball and a feather, and draw the wrong conclusions? How long did it take the Church to conclude that Copernicus was right?

    I don’t claim to be Copernicus, but I don’t need to be, in order to recognize and despise dogma.

    Your article has made one argument, but it is not definitive. I have to say, if that article is supposed to promote a conservation minded agenda – I don’t want any part of it, because I think it is a huge waste of resources.

    Some where in there is a kernel of truth. I’ll adopt that and add it to my basket of “truths”. The rest I consign to the nut cases.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “They are whacked for having not eneough ridership and too much at the same time.”

    How is that any different from the roadways?

    Metro goes in crammed and out empty. Cars go in under full and out under full.

    Both are a waste.

    Rather than beat up on one vs the other, lets try to fix both.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    scuse me while I wipe off the coffee..

    I thought I heard you say…”fix transit”.

    🙂

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s exactly what I said. We can start by making transit more civilized – requiring transit riders to have a seat.

    But we will never get anywhere with endless wrangles over which is better, if our mind is made up and we are willing to manufacture facts.

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t think the fact that transit is implemented worldwide and no examples of transit being shut down for any or all of the reasons cited why transit “fails” is making up facts.

    No matter what a study says about the how and why transit should fail.. it cannot change the fact that transit “works” or it would not be used.

    We’d see examples worldwide where transit is shut down and until we do.. I’m going to believe that studies that say the opposite.. need a little more “work”.

    🙂

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I don’t think the fact that transit is implemented worldwide and no examples of transit being shut down for any or all of the reasons cited why transit “fails” is making up facts.”

    Of course not. But, then, we can’t agree on what failure is.

    I think it is a failure if it costs more than the benefits it provides are worth.

    So far, there is no well accepted consesus on whether that’s true or not. Just a bunch of people with a bone to pick – a conversation with ten people talking and no one listening.

    Why should some people (who don’t use it) be forced to provide peak hour capacity for others? Why is this any different from Electricity or road pricing?

    RH

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “But, then, we can’t agree on what failure is.”

    RH – Failure is when most of the folks around the world who fund transit .. decide that it is a failure.

    When folks in NoVa start throwing elected out of office for supporting transit – that would be failure.

    If you are one vote out of a 1000 that says something is a failure and the other 999 do not agree…

    I’m saying.. that MY definition of failure means that a majority of people also believe it is and it goes away… and is no longer considered useful enough to pay for.

    “Why should some people (who don’t use it) be forced to provide peak hour capacity for others?”

    because a majority of people think getting cars off the road at peak hour at the same time we provide mobility for those who cannot drive – think those two things are worth it.

    electricity is the same way. No matter how strongly folks like myself feel about peak hour pricing of electricity – it won’t happen until a majority of people support it.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you are one vote out of a 1000 that says something is a failure and the other 999 do not agree…”

    Then you are a voice in the wilderness, the man who says the emperor has no clothes. It doesn’t mean you are wrong.

    We can’t even agree on what benefits and disbenefits that transit supplies, let alone what they are worth.

    You offer the suggestion that one benefit is that transit offers mobility to those that don’t drive. I accept that. Now, what is it worth?

    Not one new transit system in the U. S. has developed the ridership projected to sell it. On that basis, the 999 who agreed got sold a bill of goods.

    I am not arguing that transit is aa failure. What I’m arguing is that we don’t have a basis on which to call it a success, other than what people believe. We need a Copernicus or Newton to show us how transit actually works, as compared to how we believe it works.

    Then, we can plan systems that will work, ones that are not susceptible to the (probably correct) claims of Winston and Shirley that they don’t work. Then we can have a method of eveluating how well they work, and where we should spend our money. Winston and Shirly are like the early astronomers that could prove there were problems with the earth being the center of the universe, but didn’t necessarily have a solution to the problem they found.

    Sure, we can play Catholic Church and deny the existence of Copernican reality – and be wrong for another 200 years.

    Sorry, I don’t see the value in an arguement that says that’s the wayit is because that’s the way people believe it is.

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “What I’m arguing is that we don’t have a basis on which to call it a success, other than what people believe.”

    that’s correct.

    at the end of the day… if people know that it costs “X” dollars to provide mobility to all of society that chooses to use it… or needs it and they are paying the dollars then it is “worth” it.

    The subject is not devoid of information.

    In suburban areas – the choice is Vans or smaller bus transit systems for the underserved – because it is obvious on a cost basis that it is more cost effective.

    For urban areas – the metrics are not as clear as to whether it would be more cost-effective to move the underserved by Van/Bus or rail but it IS clear that trying to move the underserved from one end of the Wash Metro area to the other would be a real problem…

    so the obvious question is.. should the underserved be restricted to a smaller zone… that can be reasonably reached by van/bus and the answer is that we believe that the underserved should have the same level of access as others do and that means.., a way for them to have the same level of mobility as others.

    If Winston & Shirley had to do the cost-benefit for allowing the underserved to move about the region… unrestricted.. what WOULD be the cost implications?

    No one is telling Winston & Shirley that they cannot do such a study and if they did.. it would be paid attention to… if they clearly demonstrated that other forms of mobility were cheaper and just as effective.

    They have not done that.

    Basically what they’ve done is try to determine if for each dollar cost of transit.. is there a dollar or better worth of benefit and if not mistaken.. there are studies that do show this.

    And that’s the definitive approach to a subsidy.

    If a dollar of subsidy actually results is more than a dollar of value.. it’s deemed a “worthwhile” investment IF .. that’s what a majority of folks agree is a “worthy” public policy.

    The voice in the wilderness is free to make converts… but those on the other side are also free to also engage in the same advocacy.

    so we’re back to the essential reality.

    and that is that …across the world.. this calculation has been made.. and unless you want to believe that all the thousands of people across the world are stupid and/or irresponsible.. you have to accept.. that they have decided on a legitimate basis that transit is worthwhile.

Leave a Reply

Read More